Author Topic: Trump uses expletive to describe countries that we have immigrants from  (Read 9784 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Trump uses expletive to describe countries that we have immigrants from
« Reply #195 on: January 13, 2018, 02:39:31 PM »

Online jpotter33

  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26914
  • Tommy Points: 28
Let's stay civil and on subject. This thread isn't about what Obama did or the Clinton Foundation.
I appreciate this comment, but it's inevitable. Does anyone actually know why there always ends up being efforts to highlight perceived double standards or hypocrisy?

I thinks itís natural when somebody expresses outrage, yet didnít under similar circumstances previously.  Itís legit to wonder if theyíre truly outraged, or whether theyíre exaggerating to score political points.

Natural, maybe, but it needs to be called for what it is in a political debate: totally irrelevant. It's literally a logical fallacy in the most formal sense- "tu quoque". Now popularly know as "whataboutism". Of course, these days I'm an elitist if I get too debate-team-y on the Internet.

Both sides do it, of course, but I find special irony when the personal responsibility advocates make it a go-to move. God forbid the POTUS be judged on his own merits.

We teach kids on the playground that "he started it" or "he did it first" aren't valid excuses, and yet, it's in practically everything political thread like clockwork. Sigh.

Itís more a recognition that the person youíre debating has no principles.  If somebody canít say ďyes, _______ was wrong when he did something similarĒ, then s/he is part of the problem. Whataboutism isnít used to excuse behavior, itís to show people what giant, shallow hypocrites they are. Pointing out hypocrisy and a lack of principled argument seems to have a place in a debate.

No, actually it really doesn't. It's a logical fallacy and would be dismissed as such in a formal setting.

Now don't get me wrong, every discussion isn't a formal debate, but whataboutism is rarely constructive, and if on top of that you're just out to prove that other people are hypocrites then congratulations, you're tossing ad hominem attacks into the mix and just trying to feel superior.

I'm sure some people will roll their eyes at "tu quoque" and "ad hominem" and so forth, but the terms exist for a reason. They are known to be weak arguments and deflections from real debate.

At some point, it becomes "my guy took a dump in the road, but you can't complain because I heard your guy did too", and now we're living in the idiocracy.

TL;DR; whataboutism is weak sauce, shows a lack of real argument, and isn't the same as simply pointing out hypocrisy on occasion.

Eh, you're interpreting this logical fallacy too broadly here, and you're also not taking into consideration the context, which you alluded to in your "formal debate" comment. From a purely formal logical perspective, sure, these types of analogical arguments are weak (or even fallacious in certain contexts) and are considered insufficient to conclusively justify an argument and prove a conclusion.

However, we're talking about practical moral reasoning here, and per the universal/consistency/equality criterion of most moral systems (i.e. moral standards should hold equally and consistently for all parties in similar circumstances), pointing out the hypocrisy of others in similar situations is absolutely a relevant component of moral debate.

As I stated above, you're absolutely correct that this type of analogical argument is insufficient to prove a conclusion or justify a certain action or behavior, and many times it is essentially used as a "red herring" meant to deflect away from addressing the original critique of their logical argument, in which case it would certainly be a bonafide logical fallacy.

However, to suggest that this type of analogical argument has no place in practical moral reasoning (which is the majority of political arguments) is mistaken and shortsighted, because moral arguments of this type rely on some sort of universality and consistency in order to be enforceable and acceptable. Roy is correct in his argument that this type of analogical argument highlights the unprincipled and hypocritical nature of the opposition, because why would you find someone else's argument compelling if they weren't held to the same moral standard in a similar situation?

So you're both correct: while these types of analogical arguments are insufficient to prove a conclusion and should not be utilized to deflect away from arguments, they are absolutely useful and relevant to practical moral reasoning, because if people are unwilling to consistently act with the same moral standards that they hold you to, then there's no reason to give any weight to their argument.

EDIT: And let me just say that I *hate* that the concept of "whataboutism" has received so much attention lately. This logical concept is only relevant in certain situations with specific motivations, yet people regularly misapply it to any type of inductive analogical reasoning, which ticks me off due to how prevalent this type of logical reasoning is in human rationality.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2018, 02:53:18 PM by jpotter33 »
Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called and whether it professes to be enforcing the will of God or the injunctions of men.

Re: Trump uses expletive to describe countries that we have immigrants from
« Reply #196 on: January 13, 2018, 02:50:44 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35335
  • Tommy Points: -27789
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I find it interesting that people keep mentioning illiterate and poor people coming here. Typically, you need some means to come to the US. Whether it be by plane, crossing the border or whatever, there is still either a visa (temporary where they overstay) or money for the trip and to pay people to cross. To get a visa, you need to show some income to be granted a visa. My cousin had to enrolled in college and have a full time job to show she has something to get back to. My grandma had to show her house property documents and the kids in Brazil that depend on her to get a visa.

Basically, if you are barely getting by with minimum education, most likely you don't have money or any means to even start the process.

For example, my wife did the Peace Corps in Guatemala. From my limited knowledge of people that I met here, I had a preconceived notion of Latinos. When I got there, I learned that there is a whole population of indigenous Mayans that don't even speak Spanish. They're much poorer than the Latinos(which are mix of europeans decendants) and could never afford to come to the US. Since my perception has changed. An overwhelmingly percentage of Guatemalan that I see here are latinos, which means they had at least some way to get here.

With the lottery system and chain migration, you really don't need to have a skill or money, or even be of in the work force age range. Elderly parents of and immigrants for example( my uncle was able to bring over his 80+ year old mother who didn't speak a word of English from Serbia). These things put strain on the welfare system for sure.

Net, immigrants to the US are more likely to hold jobs than the nativeborn population. Here are statistics released by the Trump administration this year (not CNN, not the liberal media):

"In 2016, the labor force participation rate of the foreign born was 65.2 percent... The participation rate for the native born was 62.3 percent in 2016..."

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/forbrn.pdf

If you want to find an immigrant group that is least likely to hold down a job, that would be the white immigrants, who are dragging the immigrant number down:

"Among the major race and ethnicity groups in 2016, labor force participation rates for foreign-born Whites (59.0 percent), Blacks (70.1 percent), Asians (63.1 percent), and Hispanics (67.9 percent) were little different from the prior year."

I don't know what explains these differences. Possibly, whites are older. Or maybe they come with more wealth, or wealthier relatives, so fewer family members work. Or maybe more kids and older people are in the family units. Point is - the idea that immigrants are a bunch of nonworkers, kids, and old people doesn't stand up - especially for nonanglo immigrants. Immigrants increase the proportion of our population that is prime-age employed.

Yet:

Quote
n 2012, 51 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) reported that they used at least one welfare program during the year, compared to 30 percent of native households. Welfare in this study includes Medicaid and cash, food, and housing programs.

Welfare use is high for both new arrivals and well-established immigrants. Of households headed by immigrants who have been in the country for more than two decades, 48 percent access welfare.

Welfare use varies among immigrant groups. Households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico (73 percent), the Caribbean (51 percent), and Africa (48 percent) have the highest overall welfare use. Those from East Asia (32 percent), Europe (26 percent), and South Asia (17 percent) have the lowest.


Immigrants do use a significant number of resources.  My guess is that legal immigrants use less than illegals and asylum seekers, but overall we should only be bringing in immigrants who can 100% support themselves and their families.

« Last Edit: January 13, 2018, 02:59:00 PM by Roy H. »


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Trump uses expletive to describe countries that we have immigrants from
« Reply #197 on: January 13, 2018, 03:59:28 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 41666
  • Tommy Points: 2344
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
So I was looking at the above post, it cites a study from the Center For Immigration Studies (CIS), which has been labelled by the SLPC has a hate group (to some controversy), but is by its own admission, an agenda driven think-tank. The study is not one with what I'd call a decent providence.

But that said, THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE STUDY. With such a controversial topic, you'd think that at the very least, a pro-immigration think tank would offer an alternative study that pops up on a google search.

"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: Trump uses expletive to describe countries that we have immigrants from
« Reply #198 on: January 13, 2018, 04:00:27 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12760
  • Tommy Points: 1342
I find it interesting that people keep mentioning illiterate and poor people coming here. Typically, you need some means to come to the US. Whether it be by plane, crossing the border or whatever, there is still either a visa (temporary where they overstay) or money for the trip and to pay people to cross. To get a visa, you need to show some income to be granted a visa. My cousin had to enrolled in college and have a full time job to show she has something to get back to. My grandma had to show her house property documents and the kids in Brazil that depend on her to get a visa.

Basically, if you are barely getting by with minimum education, most likely you don't have money or any means to even start the process.

For example, my wife did the Peace Corps in Guatemala. From my limited knowledge of people that I met here, I had a preconceived notion of Latinos. When I got there, I learned that there is a whole population of indigenous Mayans that don't even speak Spanish. They're much poorer than the Latinos(which are mix of europeans decendants) and could never afford to come to the US. Since my perception has changed. An overwhelmingly percentage of Guatemalan that I see here are latinos, which means they had at least some way to get here.

With the lottery system and chain migration, you really don't need to have a skill or money, or even be of in the work force age range. Elderly parents of and immigrants for example( my uncle was able to bring over his 80+ year old mother who didn't speak a word of English from Serbia). These things put strain on the welfare system for sure.

Net, immigrants to the US are more likely to hold jobs than the nativeborn population. Here are statistics released by the Trump administration this year (not CNN, not the liberal media):

"In 2016, the labor force participation rate of the foreign born was 65.2 percent... The participation rate for the native born was 62.3 percent in 2016..."

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/forbrn.pdf

If you want to find an immigrant group that is least likely to hold down a job, that would be the white immigrants, who are dragging the immigrant number down:

"Among the major race and ethnicity groups in 2016, labor force participation rates for foreign-born Whites (59.0 percent), Blacks (70.1 percent), Asians (63.1 percent), and Hispanics (67.9 percent) were little different from the prior year."

I don't know what explains these differences. Possibly, whites are older. Or maybe they come with more wealth, or wealthier relatives, so fewer family members work. Or maybe more kids and older people are in the family units. Point is - the idea that immigrants are a bunch of nonworkers, kids, and old people doesn't stand up - especially for nonanglo immigrants. Immigrants increase the proportion of our population that is prime-age employed.

Yet:

Quote
n 2012, 51 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) reported that they used at least one welfare program during the year, compared to 30 percent of native households. Welfare in this study includes Medicaid and cash, food, and housing programs.

Welfare use is high for both new arrivals and well-established immigrants. Of households headed by immigrants who have been in the country for more than two decades, 48 percent access welfare.

Welfare use varies among immigrant groups. Households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico (73 percent), the Caribbean (51 percent), and Africa (48 percent) have the highest overall welfare use. Those from East Asia (32 percent), Europe (26 percent), and South Asia (17 percent) have the lowest.


Immigrants do use a significant number of resources.  My guess is that legal immigrants use less than illegals and asylum seekers, but overall we should only be bringing in immigrants who can 100% support themselves and their families.

Hypothetical: you have a trained cancer researcher or a brilliant 17 yo that has great potential, but each will require some assistance during adjustment or for education....  just bringing this up to suggest that optimal immigration policy is likely quite complicated and nuanced.  100% ready to support self may not be the sole criteria in a smart and compassionate immigration system.

 I think there is a very small segment of the population that either want closed borders (no legal immigration system) or open borders (free and easy entree; minimally vetted immigration).  I think the vast majority favor smart immigration with some measure of compassion and considerable forethought.  It is a travesty that we still don't have reps in Washington that can iron this out.

Re: Trump uses expletive to describe countries that we have immigrants from
« Reply #199 on: January 13, 2018, 04:12:45 PM »

Offline Ilikesports17

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8181
  • Tommy Points: 810
I find it interesting that people keep mentioning illiterate and poor people coming here. Typically, you need some means to come to the US. Whether it be by plane, crossing the border or whatever, there is still either a visa (temporary where they overstay) or money for the trip and to pay people to cross. To get a visa, you need to show some income to be granted a visa. My cousin had to enrolled in college and have a full time job to show she has something to get back to. My grandma had to show her house property documents and the kids in Brazil that depend on her to get a visa.

Basically, if you are barely getting by with minimum education, most likely you don't have money or any means to even start the process.

For example, my wife did the Peace Corps in Guatemala. From my limited knowledge of people that I met here, I had a preconceived notion of Latinos. When I got there, I learned that there is a whole population of indigenous Mayans that don't even speak Spanish. They're much poorer than the Latinos(which are mix of europeans decendants) and could never afford to come to the US. Since my perception has changed. An overwhelmingly percentage of Guatemalan that I see here are latinos, which means they had at least some way to get here.

With the lottery system and chain migration, you really don't need to have a skill or money, or even be of in the work force age range. Elderly parents of and immigrants for example( my uncle was able to bring over his 80+ year old mother who didn't speak a word of English from Serbia). These things put strain on the welfare system for sure.

Net, immigrants to the US are more likely to hold jobs than the nativeborn population. Here are statistics released by the Trump administration this year (not CNN, not the liberal media):

"In 2016, the labor force participation rate of the foreign born was 65.2 percent... The participation rate for the native born was 62.3 percent in 2016..."

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/forbrn.pdf

If you want to find an immigrant group that is least likely to hold down a job, that would be the white immigrants, who are dragging the immigrant number down:

"Among the major race and ethnicity groups in 2016, labor force participation rates for foreign-born Whites (59.0 percent), Blacks (70.1 percent), Asians (63.1 percent), and Hispanics (67.9 percent) were little different from the prior year."

I don't know what explains these differences. Possibly, whites are older. Or maybe they come with more wealth, or wealthier relatives, so fewer family members work. Or maybe more kids and older people are in the family units. Point is - the idea that immigrants are a bunch of nonworkers, kids, and old people doesn't stand up - especially for nonanglo immigrants. Immigrants increase the proportion of our population that is prime-age employed.

Yet:

Quote
n 2012, 51 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) reported that they used at least one welfare program during the year, compared to 30 percent of native households. Welfare in this study includes Medicaid and cash, food, and housing programs.

Welfare use is high for both new arrivals and well-established immigrants. Of households headed by immigrants who have been in the country for more than two decades, 48 percent access welfare.

Welfare use varies among immigrant groups. Households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico (73 percent), the Caribbean (51 percent), and Africa (48 percent) have the highest overall welfare use. Those from East Asia (32 percent), Europe (26 percent), and South Asia (17 percent) have the lowest.


Immigrants do use a significant number of resources.  My guess is that legal immigrants use less than illegals and asylum seekers, but overall we should only be bringing in immigrants who can 100% support themselves and their families.

Hypothetical: you have a trained cancer researcher or a brilliant 17 yo that has great potential, but each will require some assistance during adjustment or for education....  just bringing this up to suggest that optimal immigration policy is likely quite complicated and nuanced.  100% ready to support self may not be the sole criteria in a smart and compassionate immigration system.

 I think there is a very small segment of the population that either want closed borders (no legal immigration system) or open borders (free and easy entree; minimally vetted immigration).  I think the vast majority favor smart immigration with some measure of compassion and considerable forethought.  It is a travesty that we still don't have reps in Washington that can iron this out.
I disagree. These are really hard issues.
Quote from: George W. Bush
Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

Re: Trump uses expletive to describe countries that we have immigrants from
« Reply #200 on: January 13, 2018, 04:14:41 PM »

Offline Sophomore

  • Kyrie Irving
  • Posts: 772
  • Tommy Points: 134
I find it interesting that people keep mentioning illiterate and poor people coming here. Typically, you need some means to come to the US. Whether it be by plane, crossing the border or whatever, there is still either a visa (temporary where they overstay) or money for the trip and to pay people to cross. To get a visa, you need to show some income to be granted a visa. My cousin had to enrolled in college and have a full time job to show she has something to get back to. My grandma had to show her house property documents and the kids in Brazil that depend on her to get a visa.

Basically, if you are barely getting by with minimum education, most likely you don't have money or any means to even start the process.

For example, my wife did the Peace Corps in Guatemala. From my limited knowledge of people that I met here, I had a preconceived notion of Latinos. When I got there, I learned that there is a whole population of indigenous Mayans that don't even speak Spanish. They're much poorer than the Latinos(which are mix of europeans decendants) and could never afford to come to the US. Since my perception has changed. An overwhelmingly percentage of Guatemalan that I see here are latinos, which means they had at least some way to get here.

With the lottery system and chain migration, you really don't need to have a skill or money, or even be of in the work force age range. Elderly parents of and immigrants for example( my uncle was able to bring over his 80+ year old mother who didn't speak a word of English from Serbia). These things put strain on the welfare system for sure.

Net, immigrants to the US are more likely to hold jobs than the nativeborn population. Here are statistics released by the Trump administration this year (not CNN, not the liberal media):

"In 2016, the labor force participation rate of the foreign born was 65.2 percent... The participation rate for the native born was 62.3 percent in 2016..."

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/forbrn.pdf

If you want to find an immigrant group that is least likely to hold down a job, that would be the white immigrants, who are dragging the immigrant number down:

"Among the major race and ethnicity groups in 2016, labor force participation rates for foreign-born Whites (59.0 percent), Blacks (70.1 percent), Asians (63.1 percent), and Hispanics (67.9 percent) were little different from the prior year."

I don't know what explains these differences. Possibly, whites are older. Or maybe they come with more wealth, or wealthier relatives, so fewer family members work. Or maybe more kids and older people are in the family units. Point is - the idea that immigrants are a bunch of nonworkers, kids, and old people doesn't stand up - especially for nonanglo immigrants. Immigrants increase the proportion of our population that is prime-age employed.

Yet:

Quote
n 2012, 51 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) reported that they used at least one welfare program during the year, compared to 30 percent of native households. Welfare in this study includes Medicaid and cash, food, and housing programs.

Welfare use is high for both new arrivals and well-established immigrants. Of households headed by immigrants who have been in the country for more than two decades, 48 percent access welfare.

Welfare use varies among immigrant groups. Households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico (73 percent), the Caribbean (51 percent), and Africa (48 percent) have the highest overall welfare use. Those from East Asia (32 percent), Europe (26 percent), and South Asia (17 percent) have the lowest.


Immigrants do use a significant number of resources.  My guess is that legal immigrants use less than illegals and asylum seekers, but overall we should only be bringing in immigrants who can 100% support themselves and their families.

It’s probable that some immigrants are employed at low wages and collect the EITC and/or Medicaid. It’s not realistic to say that *any* population group will support itself 100%, if by that we mean no public benefits of any kind. People get sick or hurt; they lose a job or a family member. It’s also an explicit goal of public policy to incentivize people to work, even when they’re paid low wages, by providing the EITC.

On that study, which was written by an advocacy group, there have been questions. Other advocacy groups say immigrants substantially subsidize federal welfare and entitlements and are a small drain on states. https://newrepublic.com/article/122714/immigrants-dont-drain-welfare-they-fund-it.

I can’t referee that fight. It’s probably true that when people come without a lot of formal education, they’re mostly in the same position as low-education natives with poor language skills. The way our economy works, we make a lot of low-wage jobs and supplement that with cash benefits - think Walmart greeters on welfare; public benefits are part of their business model, for better or worse. We should decide how many can come in and then treat them as full citizens. And it should not be race-based - there is a long history there. Read up on the 1920s legislation. My own view is that even those with lower education/ language skills are mostly well above average in drive and willingness to work - they are an infusion of work ethic and creativity and new perspectives. So they’re worth admitting.

It does seem almost certain they’ve been a substantial boon for social security and Medicare, just because they’re young and helped smooth out demographics, filling in for the baby bust. ironically that’s one area where the system is a little corrupt; a lot of illegals pay in because they have fake SSNs but probably will never collect. I’d like whoever is here to be a full citizen; put them on the books same as everyone.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2018, 08:20:17 AM by Sophomore »

Re: Trump uses expletive to describe countries that we have immigrants from
« Reply #201 on: January 13, 2018, 06:34:50 PM »

Offline Amonkey

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1452
  • Tommy Points: 150
By welfare, what exactly do we mean? Are we talking government programs? Or is it food bank or thrift shops? As far as I know, federal programs that takes money from taxpayers typically paperwork, paperwork that illegal immigrants don't have. It's actually more plausible that they are paying taxes without reaping the benefits on their w2. If its from nonprofit organizations, then they're usually funded by donations and not necessarily taxpayer dollars.
Baby Jesus!

Re: Trump uses expletive to describe countries that we have immigrants from
« Reply #202 on: January 13, 2018, 06:43:18 PM »

Offline Sophomore

  • Kyrie Irving
  • Posts: 772
  • Tommy Points: 134
By welfare, what exactly do we mean? Are we talking government programs? Or is it food bank or thrift shops? As far as I know, federal programs that takes money from taxpayers typically paperwork, paperwork that illegal immigrants don't have. It's actually more plausible that they are paying taxes without reaping the benefits on their w2. If its from nonprofit organizations, then they're usually funded by donations and not necessarily taxpayer dollars.

Pretty sure they’re counting any payment - EITC, Medicaid, TANF, food stamps, etc. People without legal documents are not eligible for most federal programs but they may have family members who are (e.g., if a child of immigrants is born in the US and is a citizen, the child might get health care under CHIP). One reason that study comes up with a high %age of benefit recipients is that households are counted as immigrant households receiving benefits if any member gets any benefit.

Re: Trump uses expletive to describe countries that we have immigrants from
« Reply #203 on: January 13, 2018, 07:46:56 PM »

Offline byennie

  • Webmaster
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2037
  • Tommy Points: 270
Eh, you're interpreting this logical fallacy too broadly here, and you're also not taking into consideration the context, which you alluded to in your "formal debate" comment. From a purely formal logical perspective, sure, these types of analogical arguments are weak (or even fallacious in certain contexts) and are considered insufficient to conclusively justify an argument and prove a conclusion.

How am I not taking it into consideration when I specifically pointed out the context? I went out of my way to qualify it.

However, we're talking about practical moral reasoning here, and per the universal/consistency/equality criterion of most moral systems (i.e. moral standards should hold equally and consistently for all parties in similar circumstances), pointing out the hypocrisy of others in similar situations is absolutely a relevant component of moral debate.

Fair enough, but it's still being overused by a ridiculous margin, and also not done with any sort of precision. False equivalency comes to mind, and also fails in the moral context.

As I stated above, you're absolutely correct that this type of analogical argument is insufficient to prove a conclusion or justify a certain action or behavior, and many times it is essentially used as a "red herring" meant to deflect away from addressing the original critique of their logical argument, in which case it would certainly be a bonafide logical fallacy.

Agree =).

However, to suggest that this type of analogical argument has no place in practical moral reasoning (which is the majority of political arguments) is mistaken and shortsighted, because moral arguments of this type rely on some sort of universality and consistency in order to be enforceable and acceptable. Roy is correct in his argument that this type of analogical argument highlights the unprincipled and hypocritical nature of the opposition, because why would you find someone else's argument compelling if they weren't held to the same moral standard in a similar situation?

I agree that "no place" could be too strong, but I disagree with the premise that moral reasoning makes up the majority of political arguments. Or if it does, that's part of the problem.

So you're both correct: while these types of analogical arguments are insufficient to prove a conclusion and should not be utilized to deflect away from arguments, they are absolutely useful and relevant to practical moral reasoning, because if people are unwilling to consistently act with the same moral standards that they hold you to, then there's no reason to give any weight to their argument.

The standard being set here is critical. Instantly searching for a democrat or a republican that did something vaguely similar, and then automatically calling hypocrisy is an impossible standard. You can't demand a moral standard that neither side has a prayer of meeting, because you're talking about the lowest common denominators in a 2 party system.

EDIT: And let me just say that I *hate* that the concept of "whataboutism" has received so much attention lately. This logical concept is only relevant in certain situations with specific motivations, yet people regularly misapply it to any type of inductive analogical reasoning, which ticks me off due to how prevalent this type of logical reasoning is in human rationality.

I do see your point; however, I think you're still giving it too much credit. The whole "what about Obama/ Hillary" thing is so reflexive and shallow as to be pretty much worthless on any level. If someone wants to present a thoughtful moral argument, then sure, that has a place. It's just not what I'm seeing 99% of the time, including here.
---
Lucky17 Yahoo! Points League: Jackalopes
Offseason Tracker

Re: Trump uses expletive to describe countries that we have immigrants from
« Reply #204 on: January 13, 2018, 07:57:04 PM »

Online tarheelsxxiii

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7301
  • Tommy Points: 1228
That's a lot of thought to put into business as usual.  Nothing to see here really, though I did catch a CNN anchor literally cry over it.
"As far as playing, I didn't care who guarded me - red, yellow, black. I just didn't want a white guy guarding me, because it's disrespect to my game."
-Larry Bird

Re: Trump uses expletive to describe countries that we have immigrants from
« Reply #205 on: January 14, 2018, 08:24:50 AM »

Offline Sophomore

  • Kyrie Irving
  • Posts: 772
  • Tommy Points: 134
So I was looking at the above post, it cites a study from the Center For Immigration Studies (CIS), which has been labelled by the SLPC has a hate group (to some controversy), but is by its own admission, an agenda driven think-tank. The study is not one with what I'd call a decent providence.

But that said, THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE STUDY. With such a controversial topic, you'd think that at the very least, a pro-immigration think tank would offer an alternative study that pops up on a google search.

There are actually some studies on the other side. Here is a rundown. To get to the studies you have to click through. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/addressing-common-questions-immigration

If youíre interested in use of benefits open the tab on benefits.

Re: Trump uses expletive to describe countries that we have immigrants from
« Reply #206 on: January 14, 2018, 08:33:02 AM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 41666
  • Tommy Points: 2344
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
So I was looking at the above post, it cites a study from the Center For Immigration Studies (CIS), which has been labelled by the SLPC has a hate group (to some controversy), but is by its own admission, an agenda driven think-tank. The study is not one with what I'd call a decent providence.

But that said, THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE STUDY. With such a controversial topic, you'd think that at the very least, a pro-immigration think tank would offer an alternative study that pops up on a google search.

There are actually some studies on the other side. Here is a rundown. To get to the studies you have to click through. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/addressing-common-questions-immigration

If youíre interested in use of benefits open the tab on benefits.

Hey thanks! TP

"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: Trump uses expletive to describe countries that we have immigrants from
« Reply #207 on: January 14, 2018, 11:00:20 AM »

Offline IDreamCeltics

  • NCE
  • Kyrie Irving
  • Posts: 818
  • Tommy Points: 90
It's amazing to me that so many people could be deeply offended by athletes quietly kneeling during the national anthem in political protest, but then not understand why the President of the United States calling the countries of origin for millions of American citizens sh#tholes is objectively a stupid/elitist/divisive thing to do.

It doesn't take a tremendous leap of imagination to put yourself in someone else's shoes. 

Re: Trump uses expletive to describe countries that we have immigrants from
« Reply #208 on: January 14, 2018, 12:15:51 PM »

Offline Pucaccia

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 483
  • Tommy Points: 51
Trump didn't say it the way many on the left are hoping for.  Because of hatred for Trump, the main street media and of course the left are dying to see Trump fail even though he is doing good job(Tax Cuts and Eliminating the burdensome Obamacare mandate). They are looking for any little thing to galvanize to put Trump in a negative light and feed their narrative.  The left has nothing to offer so they try to create a narrative that Trump and his supporters are white nationalists and racist. 
Sen. Dick Durbin, who has an agenda, is the sneakiest democratic senator and Lindsay Graham who is no fan of Trump say they heard it.  Sen. Tom Cotton a military hero and Sen. David Perdue who was sitting as close to Pres. Trump as Durbin, say it was a "gross misinterpretation of what the President said.'
So I ask you honestly. Who are going to believe? The one that feeds your beliefs and hatred for Trump or what could possibly be the truth.

Because Trump is hated so much by the left and the mainstream media, this has been blown out of proportion. According to them everything he says is "Vile and racist."


I rather have someone who fights for our country and makes good policy than someone who makes nice speeches and apologizes for the country.

So when someone asks why you defend Trump, it's because the left and the mainstream media will distort and make stuff up rather that base his presidency on policy.

If you believe in bigger government , a more socialistic process and people who are here illegally should cut the line in front of people who did it legally.  State your case and lets debate it.  If you believe in smaller government and personal responsibility. We can talk about that too.

But the left and the media making up crap and misrepresenting facts doesn't get us anywhere.

By the way, if I don't want to walk in certain neighborhoods because it's a craphole, that doesn't make me racist, it makes me smart.

Re: Trump uses expletive to describe countries that we have immigrants from
« Reply #209 on: January 14, 2018, 12:34:23 PM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12354
  • Tommy Points: 2422
Also noteworthy

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-tells-african-american-audience-gop-ticket-would-put-them-back-in-chains/



Quote
@joebiden Itís not how a president should speak. Itís not how a president should behave. Most of all, itís not what a president should believe. Weíre better than this.

I'll say this, though - (and I'm hoping I'm not deflecting the thread) - Biden, Kamala Harris, Sanders, Oprah - WHOMEVER - the Democrats put forward in 2020 shouldn't say these things.

If YOU (or anyone else here) reads the article in its entirety they'll see the entire context of what Mr. Biden said.

Mr. Biden has been known as an in-your-face type of leader - that is why Pres. Obama choose him and loved him.

That is why "I" loved him and hope he runs in 2020.

But he (or anyone else running either in 2018 or 2020) simply cannot say stuff like this OR if they do they need to explain what they mean and not try to paint ALL Republicans as racist with these comments.

They will need to follow the Ralph Northam (Virginia) and ESPECIALLY the Doug Jones (Alabama) models and try to reach a BROAD SWATH of people. It can be done.

They ALSO cannot simply ATTACK Pres. Trump - this will feed into his "base". They've got to figure out ways to pull those Moderate Republicans AWAY from Trump and get the job done.

I'm hopeful that they will and this country can start coming together again.
Marcus Smart "Impacts Winning." Boston Celtics Coach Brad Stevens